On intelligence and a useful individualism
Charlotte Brontë, writing of her sisters Emily and Anne in the preface to the combined edition of Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey which was published in 1850, just over a year after their deaths. The amazing, sad story of the Brontë sisters needs no retelling from me, and it is not my purpose to dwell on it here. But these three remarkable women were a testament to native intelligence, as well as that creative font which intelligence may bestow: an interior life. Native intelligence is much in vogue in British political circles. As The Times’ Eleanor Mills wrote last week:-
Well, Eleanor Mills is a fly unaware of her entrapment in the silken threads of theoretic liberalism. So, inevitably, she assumes that human society is there to serve individual ambition, and its “justness”, “fairness” and “openness” in that respect are the only serious measures by which it can be judged. Liberal individualism necessarily requires that all “poor bright kids”, irrespective of their ancestral claim to the common goods, get to the best universities and “become the surgeons, businessmen and other professionals” of tomorrow. The problem with this view is that whilst liberalism declares the obstructions to perfect generational fluidity in social outcomes to be conservatism, traditionalism and elitism, liberal individualism is not, in fact, the only basis on which such outcomes are decided. Man is also nepotistic. The advances won by one generation are not lightly frittered away on the self-indulgent schemes of a single lifetime. Even by today’s self—professed egalitarians, they are carefully invested and re-invested in the organism of the family. This is not hypocrisy but the acknowledgement that one proximate interest (the success or fitness of one’s children) trumps another (the will to power). Darwin uber alles. There is, then, an eternal conflict between ethnic nepotism and individualism in which ethnic nepotism has the upper hand. Accordingly, modern, irredeemable individualists have resorted to the intellectual artifice of liberalism, and constructed an artificial set of rules by which not just ethnic nepotism but organic society as a whole can be combatted. Thus, justice, fairness and openness do not measure the success of organic societies but their death. Stubborn and scandalously incorrect though they are, it is fitness, purity, strength and security which manifestly do measure “organic” success. I’ve noted previously in relation to the IQ debate that hereditarians do not have to eliminate every trace of environment from their thesis, but environmentalists must eliminate all genetic input. Environmentalism is an absolutist faith. So it is precisely those evolutionary measures of organic society that liberals have put to the Pee-Cee torch. But we, in our search for a stable basis for a post-liberal society, require to commit no such violence to individualism. Rather, we can be reconcilers like the IQ hereditarians. So how are we to reconcile our restless, striving individual natures with the inherently conservative demands of organic society, given that both individualism and nepotism are evolved traits, and ethnic nepotists cannot eschew individualism any more than liberals can turn their backs on their families? Obviously, short of a die-off event, we cannot replicate the small, resource-constricted communities of the EEA model in which our particular blend of individualism and nepotism evolved. We cannot replicate the same closeness to the soil and the seasons, and the grip of tradition and faith, the sense of community, of belonging to place and to generations of family who have gone before. Most of these vivyfying and beautiful things were disaccomodated by the rise of an urbanised and, later, industrialised life. But our will to individualism was set loose ... and what a jealous, demanding, self-righteous and destructive master of the house it has become. As Charlotte Brontë, laying full claim to individualism, wrote in Chapter 12 of Jane Eyre:-
It seems to me that the Brontë sisters are at least a little instructive, though. They had pretty promising antecedents for IQ. Their father, Patrick, was an Irish methodist minister. Their mother, Maria, was born into a prosperous Cornish merchant family. So we are not looking at some miraculous artistic virgin birth, or the product of some schooled aesthetic on the wild, windswept Yorkshire Moors ... the Oxford of northern curates’ daughters. As I said at the outset, we are looking at three native and almost entirely untrained intelligences seeking - and finding - their rightful place in an unsympathetic world. Intelligence, especially in the male, is expected to do this. Together with the enhanced mate selection that rewards beauty in the female, it is surely the original generator of social mobility. More importantly from a group-evolutionary, cold-climate point of view, it is also the generator of technological progress. Intelligence is group survival for us. Its self-advocacy in the individual is a group necessity, and a signal of an endemic will to group fitness. It has, actually, far more to do with those stubborn and scandalously incorrect measures of organic society than with “justice, fairness and openness”. It belongs to our side of the argument. It is a perfect reconciler for us, given that our survival hangs on a turning away from what, by comparison, is psychologically half-baked liberal individualism ... and given that the search for a stable basis for a post-liberal society can only be conducted by intelligent men and women. Given, too, that the education system that Eleanor Mills sees as an individual salvation is so liberal and toxic to its charges, perhaps it’s more raw, gloriously untrammelled Brontëan intelligence that is needed ... and to which we, whose self-appointed task is to light the fuse, should hope to appeal. Are you out there, people? Comments:2
Posted by Guessedworker on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:56 | # Harry P? Too difficult for me. As so often, you take my meaning effortlessly. You know, you really should have followed through and provided us with some learned adumbrations to post. Promises may be broken many times for many reasons, but need be honoured only once for the satisfaction of friends. I shall seek out The Last Man. How gratifying that the themes we try to raise here were damning “progressivism” from the outset. 3
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 02:09 | #
This person, posting in a comments thread over at Turnabout, says they’re out there but refuse to engage:
4
Posted by James Bowery on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:50 | # It seems that yet another word has been so laden with connotations as to render it without real meaning: Progress. How can “progress” be measured if not against the prior state of affairs and how can one know the prior state of affairs without their conservation? If “progress” is not measured against some conserved standard, then it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Or, as I have said previously, True Liberalism Is Conservative. 5
Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 03:58 | # “Artists are the antennae of the race, but the bullet-headed many will never learn to trust their great artists.” - Ezra Pound Translation: “Give me more power and status, you bastards.” 6
Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 04:56 | # GW wrote:
Thwup thwup, the word-arrows hit their targets.
Until we reassert our rights to living space as a group, we have no ‘organic society’. After that is created, individualism can be muzzled and controlled by reference to common future—all of culture comes then under the critique of strategic ethnic planning. Prior to this, we have been critiqueing individualism on the basis of group taste, on the basis of unthought-out custom, on the basis of religious morality, on everything but strategy. Not in the least because our misunderstanding of ourselves has caused us to intersperse a veil of ‘culture’ in our thinking where in fact blood and politics are regnant (see Classics discussion). According to this thinking, different memes make me fundamentally different from my barbarian Mercian ancestors. Well, its bullshit. I couldn’t enjoy easy table talk with a Mercian, but that imagining is an anachronistic thought experiment with no relevance to reality, whereas the projections of evolutionary theory hold true across the whole animal kingdom (see Dawkins, Selfish Gene), and say that me and the Mercian are doomed to guard and propagate the same set of Gs, As, Cs and Ts, or give way to those who guard theirs more effectively. We can accept this, our role in the historical struggle, or we can opt out of it, but we cannot elect another. I dont like the word ‘human’ or ‘inhuman’ used in any sense beyond the immediately physical. But we are ‘inhuman’ as a group—I mean Westerners or European peoples—because we are not trying to survive as a group. Trying to survive is everyone’s individual experience of life, as soon as you leave your parents house. Its what seasons you, gives you your focal point, your standard of reference, and colors your life in ways that build on each other and make a single sense out of many diverse experiences. But as a group, we make no effort to survive. So it is hardly surprising that we lack a self-understanding, a focal point, a purpose, or the many educational lessons that come from this supreme undertaking, which is the only undertaking we are capable of: surviving. That word is to be understood in the sense that Dawkins designates animals as ‘survival machines’, and includes arms races to beautify culture and life, and competition against foreign gene pools in one’s environment. It is everything we are not doing on a group level since 1960 or some say 1900. When we receive our marching orders, the amount of individual subordination of the will necessary for the task at hand will be implicit in those orders. My opinion. 7
Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:19 | # GW wrote:
It’s true that a lot of that is lost—the sense of belonging to generations of family however may remain. Look to uprooted Anglo-saxons living in other places—in America, Australia, the old South Africa, old Rhodesia, for examples of how to deal with this. It’s not really so bad. There are solaces in the open sky and the beauty of nature, plus the sense of adventure and surprise that the Old Country (theoretically) didn’t offer. Plus, given some time, one develops one’s own culture and puts down new roots. But losing this link to the land and people is alienating and painful, a cause of lasting dissonance, and here is a poem by someone who would know what it means to be estranged, Sephardic Jew-cum-“Englishman” Siegfried Sassoon, who wrote: Strangeness of Heart When I have lost the power to feel the pain Sorry, I cant remember the rest and its not on the internet. Its a great poem though, too bad I couldnt share it. It articulates the alienation of a person experiencing ‘strangeness of heart’... “I heard, and could not say 8
Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 05:37 | #
Thank you Scrooby! This is a clearer resolution of the motives involved than we often get. It shows the understanding-behind-the-understanding which is the real liberalism in practice. The number actually deceived, I imagine to be relatively few. 9
Posted by Guessedworker on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 17:56 | # PF, What I want to do ... what I really want to do is to philosophise Darwin, to make Salter the touchstone of our life, to turn liberalism inside out so its guts spill in the gutter. The chink in its armour is the prior appointment individualism has with evolution. There are a number of ways to bring that out - the handling of intelligence is only one, though an important one - and all must be uncovered, dusted off and set in place in the diadem. We are few. We cannot banish the global elite or greed-filled capitalism or organised Jewry, or fight on the streets against the replacing hordes. We can only attack the zeitgeist at its critical points, and hasten its collapse. It is not a minor undertaking. It might not work, or work fast enough. But for us it is the possible - and that’s all there is, I’m afraid. Today, at the occasionally useful Daily Telegraph, a commenter named Geoff Miller succeeded in getting the following remark past the house censor:-
Now, where did he get these thoughts from. They are not just his own observations. He has picked them up , the ones about the elites, from someone else, who heard them from someone else. And so it goes, keeping faith with the truth of things right down the line. And how many others will read Mr Miller’s words and take due note? This is how it goes. This is how we can produce a critical mass among intelligent people. WM’s bullet-headed, meanwhile, will do as they do. Perhaps they will vote for the BNP if they are English. But it’s for those like us to get the thinking classes, the serious internet classes, involved in the right way. 10
Posted by PF on Mon, 30 Jul 2007 18:15 | # GW wrote:
Good, thats what I want too. And to write critical investigations of history which highlight the fact that our observations are actually natural laws. Before this web activity is illegalized, someone will have archived what we have said, and under gradually increasing pressure we will have developed a coded language which keeps us talking despite censorship- the Underground going underground. And we can write programs to rewrite the archived texts—today’s explicit writings—into the coded writings which will deceive tommorow’s censors. PF wrote:
What I want to show is that even without novels, without civilization, without arts and letters, our existence is self-justified. European culture does not justify the existence of European peoples, it is this existence which justifies itself according to Selfish Gene logic. I hope people read my above statement about my coffee-table discussions with the ancient Mercian because I really believe in that and hope to expound it in future posts and explain it in detail. 11
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 31 Jul 2007 22:49 | # Over at Turnabout, some suggestions for a list of ready-made talking-points for our side:
12
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 01 Aug 2007 21:40 | # Look how single white women in Europe think: in their minds, and they come right out and say this, political correctness makes it an obligation on their part to have sex with African Negroes (in this case, a Negro from the Cameroon) and not just sex but unprotected sex, since they fear they might seem racist, might cause hurt feelings, if they ask the Negro to put on a condom. (Hat tip to VLC posting over at Occidental Dissent.) Imagine what kind of trouble this particular Negro would be in right about now if this were the pre-1950s American South instead of Poland? But of course that was before the Jewish-promoted charlatan Gunnar Myrdal made his big splash ... (made his big splash on minds such as Lord Deedes; minds such as Enoch’s seem to have been safely immune). Times have changed since then, you know ... (right, they sure have ........ and not for the better ..........). This “white-women-have-a-moral-obligation-to-make-themselves-available-to-African-Negro-men-for-unprotected-sex” variety of PC didn’t originate in Europe, that’s for damn sure: obviously it’s been imported from Amerikwa. It’s the Out of Amerikwa theory of PC origins, as opposed to the Multiregional theory: the damn stuff gets cooked up in the ‘Kwa by the usual suspects then spreads to infect the rest of the Eurosphere. To combat it we have only to combat those in the ‘Kwa who are responsible for coming up with it. We know who they are. We don’t have to go to every European country separately to root it out: the root and trunk are in the ‘Kwa; in Europe are just the branches. Kill it at the root and trunk and its branches wither and die. 13
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Aug 2007 05:21 | # Thras valiantly tries to get Victor Davis Hanson’s head unscrewed then screwed back on frontwards:
14
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 05 Aug 2007 04:05 | # In this recent Turnabout log entry Jim Kalb replies to someone who’d asked why liberal élites aren’t bothered by multiculturalism, and after making his point in the entry he invites readers to give their opinion as to whether “there’s a better way to make the point.” Today, Clark Coleman posted a response:
Post a comment:
Next entry: Prindle’s America: An Appreciation, Part 1
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) Computer say no by Guessedworker on Thursday, 09 May 2024 15:17. (View) |
Posted by wintermute on Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:20 | #
Are you out there, people?
I take your somber meditation on the Brontës as a sign that you have finished with the new Harry Potter book and are in want of another good summer read.
Here’s an 1826 potboiler that practically has your name on it:
Weren’t you just saying something about the utopian ideal and the needs of the family?
“Artists are the antennae of the race, but the bullet-headed many will never learn to trust their great artists.” - Ezra Pound